Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

The annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, closed-world and non-destructive, so safety is covered. Beyond that the description adds genuinely non-obvious domain behavior: an 8% Idaho lodging tax, a 30-day cap, a weekly-only studio rule, and the fact that $1,000 is never a monthly rate — context an agent could not get from structured fields.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The core ('What a room costs across the portfolio, by the night and by the week') is front-loaded, which is good. But the whole thing is a single run-on sentence with a colon list that ends on the cryptic 'why $1,000 is never a monthly rate', which reads as trivia rather than actionable context.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With no parameters and no output schema, the description should at least hint at the return shape, and it does so only conceptually (per-night, per-week, plus rules). It is adequate for a simple read tool but leaves the response structure and the sibling routing question unanswered.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The tool takes zero parameters, so there is no parameter semantics to document and the baseline is 4. Nothing in the description misleads about inputs.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly conveys the resource — nightly and weekly room costs across the portfolio plus the stay rules (minimum stay, sub-week pricing, 30-day cap, studio rule, lodging tax). What it lacks is any differentiation from the sibling quote_stay, which plausibly overlaps on 'how a stay under a week is priced', so an agent cannot tell from the description which tool to reach for.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no routing to alternatives. Given a sibling named quote_stay, the absence of any line like 'use quote_stay for a dated price' leaves the most important selection decision to inference.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.